Question

discuss the Serrano decision and its implications for state funding.

Answer 1

In 1971, the California Supreme Court recognized for the first—but not the last—time that students have a fundamental right to equal educational opportunity under the California Constitution. In Serrano v. Priest, California public school students and their parents brought a class action suit against state and local executive officers, challenging the constitutionality of the State’s public education financing system.

The California Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that the public school financing scheme violated the equal protection clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions because the plaintiffs’ allegations—if proven to be true at trial—would demonstrate that the State’s school financing system classified its recipients on the basis of their collective affluence and made the quality of a child’s education depend upon the resources of his school district and ultimately upon the pocketbook of his parents.

In reaching its decision, the California Supreme Court found that education is the lifeline of both the individual and society and serves the distinctive and priceless function as the bright hope for entry of the poor and oppressed into the mainstream of American society. The Court also noted that unequal education leads to unequal job opportunities, disparate income, and handicapped ability to participate in the social, cultural, and political activity of our society. As a result, the Court held that education is a fundamental right under the Federal and California Constitutions.

Because the plaintiffs alleged that the State’s public school funding system classified students on the basis of wealth and impinged upon their fundamental right to education, the California Supreme Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis to the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found that the school financing laws at issue were not necessary to achieve any compelling state interest, and thereby failed under the strict scrutiny analysis. As such, the Court remanded the case to the trial court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their claims at trial and held that the laws comprising the State’s school financing system must be found unconstitutional if the plaintiffs’ allegations ultimately proved to be true.